You're listening to live courtroom coverage of the trial of Karen Reed from the Hidden

Killers podcast and True Crime Today. Now, back to the courtroom.

All right. Good morning, everybody.

All right, so Dr. Welch can testify that the data he downloaded and analyzed and the damage to the Lexus

is consistent with Ms. Reed's vehicle being in a collision on January 29th at 1232 a.m.

Because he's a qualified expert and his opinion is based on reliable methodology appropriately applied.

In addition, Dr. Welch can testify that Mr. O'Keefe's injuries are consistent with his having been struck by a Lexus that is physically identical to Ms. Reed's Lexus,

because this opinion is based upon, among other things, his experimental work that came into evidence without objection as to scientific methodology and application.

However, he may not testify that Ms. Reed's Lexus collided

with Mr. O'Keefe because that conclusion is not based on the application of reliable

scientific methodology. The problem here is not that the opinion concerns the ultimate issue

because of Massachusetts, that's not a bar to admissibility.

Rather, it is that Dr. Welter, the expert, is drawing an inference based upon more than scientific method.

His opinions set the stage for argument and a permissible inference to be drawn by jurors through the application of their sound judgment

to the opinions that they find credible. But the jurors are as well positioned to draw or

reject the inference as is the expert. That is, the inference is not compelled by the application

of any scientific method. So that's the rule.

All right, so the jurors are lining up.

We should have them momentarily.

Thank you for like off today.

Okay.

Is Dr. Welcher right around?

...